Posts Tagged ‘Islamic bigotry’

Israel’s ‘moral clarity letter frustrates Islamic-Fascists and radical leftists so-called “activists”

April 16, 2012

Israel’s ‘moral clarity’ letter frustrates Islamic-Fascists and radical leftists so-called “activists”

israel today | Israel News | Anti-Israel

fly-in protest is a bust – israel today
Sunday, April 15, 2012 | Ryan Jones

Anti-Israel fly-in protest 

is a bust

Israel was on

alert Sunday for a planned mass fly-in protest,

or “flytilla,” by foreign anti-Israel activists

protesting the Jewish state’s control of Judea

and Samaria, including the eastern half of

Jerusalem. But by the end of the work day, a mere

27 activists had managed to land in Israel. They

were quickly detained and deported.

The stunt was largely thwarted by Israel

loudly publicizing the fact that it would deny

entry to the activists, insisting that they were

arriving for the sole purpose of provoking

unrest. As a result, most airlines cancelled the

activists’ tickets rather than be billed for

their return flights upon deportation from

Israel. Unable to even reach Israel, hundreds of

the activists demonstrated at an airport in

Paris.

Those who did make it to Israel were presented

an official letter of welcome by Israel’s Foreign

Ministry. The wry letter read:

Dear activist,

We appreciate your choosing to make Israel the

object of your humanitarian concerns. We know

there were many other worthy choices.

You could have chosen to protest they Syrian

regime’s daily savagery against its own people,

which has claimed thousands of lives.

You could have chosen to protest the Iranian

regime’s brutal crackdown on dissent and support

of terrorism throughout the world.

You could have chosen to protest Hamas rule in

Gaza, where terror organizations commit a double

war crime by firing rockets at civilians and

hiding behind civilians.

But instead you chose to protest against

Israel, the Middle East’s sole democracy, where

women are equal, the press criticizes the

government, human rights organizations can

operate freely, religious freedom is protected

for all and minorities do not live in fear.

Therefore we suggest to let you solve first

the real problems of the region, and then come

back and share with us your experience.

Have a nice flight.

The letter was seen as a public relations

victory, as it strongly highlighted the grossly

exaggerated attention paid to Israel and its

conflict with the Palestinian Arabs, a conflict

that pales in comparison with so many other

crises around the world. For

many, it is that gross exaggeration, that

irrational obsession with what “the Jews” are

doing, that marks such schemes as

anti-Semitic.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsIte

m/tabid/178/nid/23189/language/en-US/Default.aspx

Israel to ‘thank’ fly-in activists in mocking

letter



Jerusalem Post

14 Apr 2012

By HERB KEINON, YAAKOV LAPPIN, TOVAH LAZAROFF



Israel plans to bar entry by some 2,000 activists

from at least 15 different countries, mostly in

Europe, either by preventing them from boarding

their flights or by deporting them once they

arrive.



The activists want to draw attention to Israel’s

practice of barring foreigners it believes could

cause trouble by engaging in pro-Palestinian

activities during their visit.



The letter – drawn up in the Prime Minister’s

Office – noted, that the activists “could have

chosen to protest the Syrian regime’s daily

savagery against its own people, which has

claimed thousands of lives.”



Alternatively, they could have chosen to protest

“the Iranian regime’s brutal crackdown on dissent

and support of terrorism throughout the world.”

Or, if they simply had to come to this part of

the globe, they “could have chosen to protest

Hamas rule in Gaza, where terror organizations

commit a double war crime by firing rockets at

civilians and hiding behind civilians.”



Instead, “you chose to protest against Israel,

the Middle East’s sole democracy, where women are

equal, the press criticizes the government, human

rights organizations can operate freely,

religious freedom is protected for all and

minorities do not live in fear.”



The letter concludes with a suggestion that the

activists first solve “the real problems of the

region” and then “come back and share with us

your experience.”



In an indication that Israel will not let the

protesters in but will instead deport them back

to their countries of origin, the letter ends

with the line: “Have a nice flight.”



Meanwhile, Foreign Ministry officials said

Saturday night that responsibility for dealing

with the flytilla was in the hands of the Public

Security Ministry, which will be in contact with

the consulates of the countries whose nationals

are to be barred from entering the country.



The Foreign Ministry has over the past few weeks

been in discussions with its counterparts in

capitals around the world, explaining Israel’s

position regarding the fly-in and making clear

that those coming to engage in provocative

actions would not be given an entry visa.



Israeli authorities circulated to the airlines

the names of some 1,200 pro-Palestinian activists

expected to participate, in the hope that the

companies would prevent them from boarding.



One official explained that if someone flies into

a country without the necessary visa or is not

given that visa when he or she lands, the

responsibility – and expense – for flying the

person back falls on the airline.



Already on Wednesday, Amnon Shmueli, who heads

the Immigration Authority at Ben- Gurion Airport,

sent a letter to all airlines with a list of

names of the people it believed were planning on

participating in flytilla, according to a

document posted on its website.



The document said, “Due to statements of

pro-Palestinian radicals to arrive on commercial

flights from abroad to disrupt order and confront

security forces at friction points, it was

decided to deny their entry.”



“Attached is a list of passengers that are denied

entry to Israel. In light of the above mentioned,

you are ordered not board them on your flights,”

the letter states.



“Failure to comply with this directive will

result in sanctions against the airlines.”



According to the website, already as early as

Tuesday a foreign visitor from Sweden who entered

Israel from Eilat was asked to sign a pledge not

to be a member of a pro-Palestinian organization,

not to be in contact with any pro-Palestinian

organizations and not to participate in

pro-Palestinian activities.



Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch

confirmed Saturday night that Israel had asked

airlines not to board fly-in passengers.



“They acted pretty much accordingly,” he said.



The public security minister, who is in charge of

Israel’s response to the flytilla, said a

passenger plane with activists could land in

Israel as early as Saturday night.



“We’ve started initial preparations tonight,” he

said on Saturday.



“Tomorrow is the main day…. Clear instructions

have been given to police, the interior

minister… to prevent provocations and not allow

disturbances at Ben-Gurion Airport.”



Those identified by Israel as provocateurs who

manage to circumvent the no-fly lists and land in

Israel will be “isolated from the central

airport,” Aharonovitch said.



Activists who get past all of Israel’s measures

“will be arrested if they cause disturbances,” he

added.



Two European airlines, Jet2.com and Lufthansa,

told passengers on Friday that they planned to

comply with Israel’s demands, according to the

Welcome to Palestine website.



Jet2 advised passengers that Israel had denied

them entry and as such they might not be able to

board their flights. Lufthansa informed the

passengers in question that their tickets had

been canceled.



The pro-Palestinian website #Airflotilla2

uploaded a scanned image of one of the tickets

canceled by Lufthansa and reported that the same

notification had been sent to dozens of activists

on Thursday, informing them that their

reservations had been canceled “by order of

Israel.”



Hundreds of unarmed police officers will guard

the airport on Sunday, when anywhere from 500 to

1,000 activists try to land in Israel, according

to police estimates.



Sunday is expected to be one of Israel’s busiest

air travel days, with some 45,000 passengers

landing and taking off from Ben-Gurion.



Central police district chief Cmdr. Bentsi Sao

will oversee the operation, which is aimed at

ensuring routine at the airport.



Palestinian activist Mazin Qumsiyeh, a professor

at Bethlehem University and one of the organizers

of the event, said that Israel was only harming

itself with its “hysterical” reaction.



“Why do they want people to lie to them at the

airport?” he asked. “Why can’t they say they are

coming to visit us in Bethlehem?”



Jerusalem Post staff contributed to this

report.

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPol

itics/Article.aspx?id=266012

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When the ONE founder of the conflict, the Mufti was called in 1938: ‘Hitler of the Near East’

February 29, 2012

Two earlier signs (1938, 1941 articles) of the Mufti called then the ‘Hitler of the Near East’ And that he was the one and only ONE who ‘founded’ the conflict.

1.) Appeasement didn’t work.
2.) Mufti’s dream of creating a Caliphate under him as ‘king’ of all Muslims.

One Man Plots Arabs’ Bloody Fight On Jews – Highest Mufti, In Exile, Guides Whole Prograp; Hopes To Be King
By H. R. KNICKERBROCKER
Portsmouth Times – Sep 25, 1938

BEIRUT, Lebanon, Sept. 24— High upon a mountain crest in the Lebanon sits serenely His Eminence, the chief of all the Arabs in Palestine, the paramount public enemy of the Jews in Zion, the Hitler of the near east. He greeted me with all the simple dignity of an Arab fuhrer.

Haj Amin al-Husseini, grand mufti of Jerusalem, mufti of all the muftis of Palestine, is in exile. Over the mere shooting of a British district commissioner, he had to leave Jerusalem a year ago. The incident has paled beside the daily toll of terror in the Holy Land today. It cost him his title of president of the Higher Arab committee. British took that away, but they could not take away his power. Not could they even take his title of president of the Moslem supreme council. Much less deprive him of ambition, too dazzling to be mentioned, one day to have the title “caliph” and rule the Moslem world.

Rapidly Attaining Goal

That title requires its bearer to be sovereign of an independent Moslem state. Hence the mufti’s unquenchable desire to become king of Palestine.

It requires a prestige which he does not yet posssess but rapidly is aquiring. For he is the one Arab who challenges the British and therewith wins respect in every disaffected Moslen heart from India to Egypt.
[…]

Many Jews claim that 90 percent of the fiercely violent Arab opposition to the British mandate, to the Balfour declaration to Zion and the Jewish National Home from this one man. Most Jews and many British admit that His Eminence provides the leadership and through him flows the money from Arab, German, and Italian sources to inspire and feed the Arab terror in palestine.
[…]

His Eminence claims direct descent from Mohammed through the prophet’s daughter, Fatimah, and the caliph Ali. His enemies contest this, charging his real name should be Aswad, and that his his forefathers only married into the family of Husseini, descendants of the prophet.

Be that as it may, his family is incontestably old, and well to do. He was born in Jerusalem, addtended the government school there, and then the school of Sheik Rashid Rida in Cairo, which he quit at 20 to make the pilgrimage to Mecca. About this time his father, the mufti of Jerusalem, Sheik Taher al-Husseini, died and his elder brother, Kamel al-Husseini, succeeded to the title.

At the outbreak of the war Amin joined the Turkish army,..

link

==

In British Side Jailed Once as Foe, Now He’s Hitler’s Aid
Youngstown Vindicator – May 12, 1941
By Lemuel .F. Parton (Consolidated News Features Writer) New York

May 12.— The British their present effort to keep the Moslem world in their orbit, are embarrassed by their mistake in salvaging and placating a possibly dangerous enemy, in an earlier Munich. In 1920, the loud and bellicose Amin Al-Husseini of Jerusalem stirred up a pogrom and sundry killings. He was senteneced to 10 years in prison, and fled to Trans-jordania.

Sir Herbert Samuel, high commissioner of Jerusalem, was concerned about alienating Arabs. So he amnestied Amin, brought him back and had him appointed grand mufti of Jerusalem.
He thought he had “peace in our time,” but the grand mufti became as the hitler of the Near East,” fomented murderous assaults on Jews and in 1937 unleashed a terror which got out of bounds and made him again a fugitive.

Here he is agin, a Nazi ace trouble-maker, stirring in with the boys in the back room at Baghdad. Plotting to deal misery to the British. On fire with ambition to become king of the Moslem world, second in power only to king Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia, he is a shrewd and resourceful conspirator, credited by some observers with having rendered important aid to the Nazis in the disaffection of Iraq.

The French also muffed the mufti and his schemes. They gave him haven in Lebanon, when he was exiled in 1937, an there, in a palace which looked like a fortress built on concrete blocks, he held a sort of Pan-Islamic court, in a silver-painted room, wearing the ancestral robes of his family of six generations of muftis..

link

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1922-2012 90 Years to first Arab racist anti-Jewish boycott

February 22, 2012

1922-2012 90 Years to first Arab racist anti-Jewish boycott

The current bigoted anti-Israel boycotts, are NOT related to any “policies.” It began many years before Israel was re-established, in 1922. It was pushed mainly by the infamous Mufti Haj amin al-Husseini, who allied himself with Hitler later on.

Authors:

Economic warfare is an essential component of total war; anti-Semitism is the ideological concomitant of the Arabs’ total war against the Jewish state.

Anti-Semitism imbues this economic war with hatreds which have historic roots within the Arab world; it is an endemic feature of the boycott, despite the Arab claim that they have a quarrel only with “Zionists,” not with Jews.
[…] A call went out in 1922 from the Fifth Arab Congress, meeting in Nablus, for all Arabs to boycott Jewish businesses; seven years later, the First Palestine Arab Women’s Congress asked “every Arab to buy nothing from the Jews but land, and to sell them everything but land.”
Other, similar calls went out in 1931 and 1933, and in 1936 a boycott of all Jewish products was proclaimed by Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti and spiritual leader of all Moslems. This was the forerunner of today’s Arab Trade Boycott.

Terence Prittie, Walter Henry Nelson, Ter The economic war against the Jews (Secker & Warburg, 1978, 269 pp.) p. 4, p. 9

In March and April 1933, The Mufti, praised Nazi Germany’s anti-Jewish treatment, especially the boycotts.

Current organizers of anti-Israel boycotts (like, BDS, Anti-Semitism’s New Face,” the movement to “isolate Israel as part of their program to destroy Israel”, PHAS-Anti-Semitic Motifs in Anti-Israelism have been exposed, and as US offical says Yes, the Boycott of Israel Is Anti-Semitic and as celebrated Italian writer says the boycott ‘is “a form of racism.”‘ Demonizing unfairly, blatantly maliciously lying obessively about the 100% democratic victim-Israel fighting off a constant existential threat since the 1920s and beyond, is bigotry, not “legitimate criticism.”) ‘market’ their racism with the false cover of “anti-racism,” and using the outrageous “apartheid slur,” which was invented in 1961 by the Mufti’s henchman Ahmad Ahukairy, who allied hismelf with Nazi groups in 1962 and is known for coining the genocide phrase ‘throw the Jews into the sea,’ in 1967, called Shukairy’s slogan.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , WW2

Hacking Jihad

February 12, 2012

Anonymous hackers threaten “crusade” [JIHAD] against Israeli websites
10 Feb 2012

The world-wide internet hacker network ‘Anonymous’ has released a video threatening a cyber war against Israel.. urging hackers from across the Arab and Muslim world to target the websites of the Jewish state.
http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/11308/
anonymous_hackers_threaten_crusade_against_israeli_websites

Note, they also speak about “crimes against humanity,” albeit not in the right place, not on the perpetrators Palestinian Arab/Muslims who use their civilians but about Israelis fight for survival!

___

Related:

Saudis laud credit card hacking scheme
Ynetnews – Jan 4 – 2012

Scheme widely reported in Saudi-Arabia as web surfers welcome damage caused to Israelis. ‘Jews are the most despicable, Hitler was right,’ one talkbacker says
Roi Kais Published: 01.03.12, 19:56 / Israel News
[…]
“If I were a hacker I would wish for 800000 credit cards to be leaked, not just 400000,” one … The responses were mostly hostile towards Jews and Israel.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4170888,00.html

Proving again, anti-Jewish Arab-Islamic bigotry is not a result of the conflict but the base and motivation FOR it.

____

See also:

The cyberwar on Israel escalates | The Ethical Hacker’s Life
Jan 16, 2012 – The terrorist group Hamas is also calling hackers all over the world to engage in cyberwar or as they call it “cyber jihad” against Israel.

http://www.meitarkeren.com/2012/01/the-cyberwar-on-israel-escalates/

UK Authorities Brace For ‘Cyber Jihad’ By Al Qaeda After Bin Laden Death

First Posted: 7/12/11 Updated: 9/11/11


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/12/al-qaeda-cyber-jihad_n_895579.html


Tags: , , , , , , ,

Cameron and Clegg give a free pass to racism [by Arab/Muslim Palestinian leadership]

January 22, 2012

“Cameron and Clegg give a free pass to racism.” [Melanie Phillips, Daily Mail, January 17, 2010:

… Clegg should be condemned in the strongest possible terms for his support of racism. For he is supporting the ethnic cleansing of Jews from a future state of Palestine.

Why does the expansion of Jewish housing in the suburbs of Jerusalem prevent a state of Palestine from being established? Only because Abbas and his cronies have said over and over again that not one Jew will be allowed to live in their state of Palestine.
That racist agenda is what Clegg and Cameron are supporting. They too assume that, by definition, wherever Jews are living cannot be subsumed into Palestine. Some 20 per cent of Israel’s population are Israeli Arabs.
Why don’t Clegg and Cameron support the idea that there can be Palestinian Jews? Why do they not only agree that a future state of Palestine must be Judenrein but even blame Israel for ‘vandalism’ by failing to go along with that racist idea?

[…]
Why are Cameron and Clegg supporting the Holocaust-denier Abbas and his racist Palestinian Authority which pumps out hideous, Nazi-style demonisation of Jews and the intention to destroy Israel [- as here,http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/3258.htm here,http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=452&fld_id=452&doc_id=6099 and here,http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=5954 along with countless other examples -] and which extols those who have slaughtered Israelis as great Palestinian heroes whose murderous Jew-hatred serves as an example for Palestinian children to emulate?
For Cameron and Clegg to welcome this monster to Britain, while themselves demonising the nation he wants to wipe out and against which his administration incites hatred and murder week in, week out, is a truly sickening spectacle.”Cameron and Clegg give a free pass to racism.” By Melanie Phillips, The Daily Mail, 17th January 2012,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2087589/David-Cameron-Nick-Clegg-free-pass-racism.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

RACIST ARAB SLAVERS: Arab league “upset” at S. Sudan’s willingness to ally with free and democratic Israel

January 16, 2012

RACIST ARAB SLAVERS: Arab league “upset” at S. Sudan’s willingness to ally with free and democratic Israel

Arabs Have a History of Enslavement of South Sudanese not the Jews
by Editorial – 16.01.2012
The above statement follows the sarcastic remark made by the current Secretary General of the Arab league Nabil Al-Araby that it would be to the benefit of South Sudan to join the Arab League instead of establishing diplomatic relations with the state of Israel. “From my end I regret that South Sudan took this step [Kiir visiting Israel] and it is part of Sudan from my point of view,” Al-Araby said in an interview with Qatar news agency..

http://www.thecitizen.info/opinion/arabs-have-a-history-of-enslavement-of-south-sudanese-not-the-jews/

Related:

Author explains (2011) the ”Baqt” agreement in Africa:

The Baqt in general was an Arab Muslim’s practice probably during the Islamic expansion which overran many countries including Syria, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Mauritania, Iraq, Egypt, Libya Sudan etc. And during those wars, the Arabs would conquer, occupy and take booties (i.e. slaves, land and movable properties) where they were victorious over their enemies or victims. And where they failed to conquer immediately, they would impose the baqt or the payment in slaves and other valuable properties, plus certain conditions intended to weaken the indigenous socio-economic and political systems and the people at large, so that when the Arab Muslims become strong again they would conquer and colonized them. For the Arab Muslims there would always be no permanent peace with infidels or non Muslims until they surrender and become the dhimmes under the Arab Islamic Apartheid, as the third class citizens in an Islamic State, or if they submit to conversion and assimilation into Arab Islamic culture and religion, yet they would still become third or fourth class citizens because they would be treated as non Asharaf (i.e. non true Arab race or a non relative of the Prophet), non Awalad el Bled or non members of the Brown Arab Muslim Sudanese tribesmen (BRAMS) which is usually consisting of two main prominent Arab nationalities which include Jaaleen, and el Shaageen and the Arabised Danagaleen or Nubians. Indeed the non Arabs Muslim converts are always treated as outsiders within the Arab based Sectarian communities who consider themselves as “Alaharaf” the relatives of the Prophet” or Awalad el Bled (the children of the Land etc).<ref>Sudan: Will the Republic of South Sudan Accept Another Baqt the Dilemmas of Post Independence Agreement

Deng Dongrin Akuany
6 January 2012,

http://allafrica.com/stories/201201061141.html

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 10, 1975 – Arab-Islamic anti-Jewish racist lobby (with Communists’ help) hijack the U.N. and –unfairly– denounce Zionism, leading to the UN resolution 3379

November 6, 2011
November 10, 1975


Arab-Islamic anti-Jewish racist lobby (with Communists’ help) hijack the U.N. and –unfairly– denounce Zionism, leading to the UN resolution 3379

The hypocrisy of both forms of exclusiveness; pan-Arabism and pan-Islamism denouncing Israel’s democracy where its Arab-Muslims have equal rights.

Anti-Semitism in the United Nations
As a result of such bias, the UN has lost credibility. … The infamous “Zionism is Racism” resolution was passed in 1975
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/unantisem.html

Testimony of The Anti-Defamation League on The United Nations..
http://www.adl.org/durban/testimony.asp

Jul 31, 2001 – The infamous “Zionism = racism” resolution was rescinded and the UN
What is the evidence that the United Nations is biased against Israel …
[…] The UN General Assembly is still dominated by blocks of third-world countries that are anti-American and anti-Israel. The numerical strength of the Arab states and the Non-Aligned Movement in the General Assembly created the long series of offensive, anti-Israel, anti-American and anti-Western resolutions, capped by the infamous 1975 “Zionism equals racism” Resolution 3379. Except for Resolution 3379 itself, repealed in 1991, these black marks of injustice remain on the General Assembly’s record.

In December 1991, the infamous 1975 “Zionism equals racism” resolution was repealed by the General Ass
embly. The repeal effort, which should have been a self-evident proposition, required an extensive diplomatic lobbying campaign by the United States, Israel and a few others. It included the direct, personal participation of President Bush, Vice President Quayle, and Secretary of State Baker; massive efforts by every regional bureau of the Department of State in Washington, American Ambassadors and their staffs in New York and every UN member capital; and lobbying by private groups around the world. The very difficulty of repealing Resolution 3379 showed just how deeply ingrained in the UN system was its anti-Semitic bias, and why, even after repeal, its effects linger.

The UN has repeatedly held Emergency Special Sessions of the General Assembly on Israeli construction in Jerusalem. The Emergency Special Session was originally convened in 1950 for emergencies like the Korean War. In the last 15 years, these special meetings have only been held regarding Israel. Emergency Special Sessions were not convened over the genocide in Rwanda, ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, or with regard to the other major world conflicts, but they were convened to condemn Israelis moving into buildings they own in territory they have a legitimate claim to.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_faq_palestine_un_anti_israel_bias.php
… In 1974, when the UN General Assembly invited Yaser Arafat to address the body, and in 1975 granted the PLO “observer status”, the first time any non-nation was give such recognition or standing.

Even with this prelude, it was shocking when on November 10, 1975 the United Nations General Assembly adopted, by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), its Resolution 3379, which states as its conclusion..
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_un_zionism_racism.php

Anti-Semitism Entraps U.N.
Palm Beach Post – Nov 7, 1975
By Abba Eban

The United Nations began its life as an anti-Nazi alliance. Thirty years later it is on the way to becoming the world center of anti-Semitism. There is no other tribunal form which such a torrent of abuse is poured forth every year against values, ideals and articles of faith revered by the Jewish people across the centuries. The horrifying truth that Hitler himself would often have felt at home in a forum which gave applause to a gun-toting Yasir Arafat and an obsequious ovation to the murderous Idi Amin.

There is, of course, no difference whatever between anti-Semitism and the denial of Israel’s statehood. Classical anti-Semitism denies the equal rights of Jews as citizens within society. Anti-Zionism denies the equal rights of the Jewish people to its lawful sovereignty within the community of nations. The common principle in the two cases is discrimination.

Zionism is nothing more — but also nothing less — that the Jewish people’s sense of origin and destination in the land linked eternally with its name. It is also the instrument whereby the Jewish nation seeks an authentic fulfillment of itself.

And the drama is enacted in the region in which the Arab nation has realized its sovereignty in 20 states comprising 200 million people in four and a half million square miles, with vast resources.

The issue therefore is not whether the world will come to terms with Arab nationalism. The question is at what point Arab nationalism, with its prodigious glut if advantage, wealth and opportunity, will come to terms with the modest but equal right of another Middle Eastern nation to pursue its life in security and peace.

There are any ways in which Zionism can be defined. I hold in memory a concise formulation made 28 years ago: When Arab armies has attacked Israel on the day of its birth. Andrei Gromyko said in the Security Council on May 21, 1948, that Arab military operations were “aimed at the suppression of a national liberation movement.” It is as simple as that. Truth does not change just because those who proclaim it get tired of their own veracity.

Recently, a coalition of Moslem and Communist depotisms, reinforced, I hope temporarily, by a few Latin-American governments, produced an innovation. In the past decade it has often been possible for the United Nations to adopt resolutions criticizing the policies of member states — provided only that they are non-Moslem non-Communist states which practice parliamentary democracy and are not in the “third world” There are not very many of these, and these alone are considered fair game.

But never before until recently has the Moslem-Communist coalition sought to deploy its assured majority for the defamation of an ideology, a historic doctrine and a spiritual faith endorsed by the United Nations itself 28 years ago. What the General Assembly’s Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee conducted was not so much a debate as a doctrinal Inquisition, as in the Middle Ages.

The Intellectual default is no less spectacular that the moral decline. The charge is, of all things, “racism”! Yet it is just as natural for Arabs to be citizens and members of Parliament in Israel today as it is inconceivable for non-Moslems to be citizens, still less office-holders, in Saudi Arabia or Yemen.

The real essence of the draft resolution is to affirm a principle of monolithic exclusiveness for the Middle East, and to iron out all wrinkles of diversity. Thus, Kurdish individualities brutally oppressed in Iraq; the Christian particularity of Lebanon is to be drowned in a bloodbath; and Israel’s specific Jewish vocation is assailed. The purpose of the resolution’s sponsors is that in a region where many nations, tongues and faiths had their birth the monopoly of independence must be for Moslem pan-Arabism alone. The paradox is that Israel is less likely than others to be injured by the fiasco. The strongest of certainties is that Israel will not disappear, or be swallowed up into something else, or renounce its name, its tongue, its faith, its Jewish solidarities or its Zionist vocation…
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=7iYvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qs0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=3758,2505344
Zionism and the U.N.
New York Times – Nov 3, 1975
By Abba Eban
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20810FE3B5F1B7493C1A9178AD95F418785F9

Out of step: life-story of a politician : politics and religion in a world …‎ – Page 112 Jack Brian Bloom – Antisemitism – 2005 – 391 pages

Arabism is racism” would have been an interesting debating topic. The OIC
countries were very clever in how they deflected the slavery issue that could so easily have been turned on them with a vengeance

http://books.google.com/books?lr=&cd=25&id=Kr2gAAAAMAAJ&dq=arabism+is+racism

Arabism Equals Racism
By: Gerald A. Honigman
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, October 13, 2006

There’s an expression, “The pot calling the kettle black.” It refers to someone claiming a sin in others that is at least as prevalent – if not more so – in the accuser than it is in the accused. Hypocrisy is the name of the game.

Turn the clock back three decades.

Some things change, others never will – such as the acceptance of anyone else’s political rights in a multi-ethnic region that most Arabs see exclusively as “purely Arab patrimony.” That’s the Arab-Israel conflict in a nutshell; but it is also the core of the Arab-Berber, Arab-Kurd, Arab-Black African, Arab-Copt, Arab-Assyrian, Arab-non-Arab Lebanese conflicts, as well, among others. The Arabs’ Anfal Campaign against the Kurds and their actions in Darfur and the rest of the southern Sudan are just a few of many examples of Arab genocidal actions against all who might disagree.

To be accepted, and not literally exterminated, one must do what Egypt’s most successful Copt did – consent to this age-old forced subjugation and Arabization. Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali became a top official in President Anwar Sadat’s government and went on to become Secretary General of the United Nations, as well.

“Uncle Butros” instead of “Uncle Tom”.

He also instructed that for it to be accepted, Israel, as an entire country, must consent to being Arabized; like those Kurdish kids in Syrian Kurdistan who are forced today to sing songs praising their “Arab identity” and so forth.

Back in the 1970s, I was a consultant for a major organization while trying to finish my own doctoral work. One of my main jobs involved being brought in by dozens of major colleges and universities across a three-state region in the American Midwest to balance anti-Israel spokesmen on campus. One such visit was to Ohio University in Athens, near my small-mouth bass fishing grounds in the Hocking River.

OU was famous for its English language program for foreign students, so there were numerous folks there from all over the Arab and African worlds.

Those were the days of the United Nations’ infamous Zionism Equals Racism resolution. Arab and pro-Arab professors were already hijacking the campus scene, constantly putting Israel under the high-power lens of moral scrutiny in ways that they would never dream of doing to the Jewish State’s surrounding Arab neighbors.

It was arranged for me to come to deliver a lecture to balance one given previously by the other side.

The Arabs and their supporters – often left-wing Jews themselves – were “loaded for game” when they heard of my invitation. But so was I.

I was a card-carrying member of the London-based Anti-Slavery Society, and persistent reports were coming through of slavery (and worse) still being practiced in Arab lands, the lands of some of the same folks screaming about alleged “Zionist racists”. I prepared a small booklet called “Look Who’s Calling the Kettle Black”, which consisted of about a dozen short articles dealing with the hypocrisy of the Arab position. I had numerous copies prepared for distribution.

I had some of my host students in the audience ready for action. They were in the company of hundreds who packed the lecture hall, including college officials, professors and so forth. Unlike some of the Hillel organizations elsewhere, the director at OU was on the ball when it came to these issues. My cadre consisted largely of Hillel members.

After my presentation, I had my usual question-and-answer session. That’s when the proverbial manure hit the fan. I was anticipating a Zionism-equals-racism question from the audience and, sure enough, I was blessed with one.

I calmly replied, “Since you are so concerned about such issues, I believe you’ll be interested in the packet of information you are about to receive.”

I then had my cadre pass out the “Look Who’s Calling The Kettle Black” booklets.

After the commotion and dust settled, and it was time to leave for my hotel, several carloads of Arab students followed me. Some members of my group decided it was best to keep me company that night. Think of the Danish cartoons and the Pope’s comment incidents today. The Arab idea of free speech is the same now as it was back then, and as it has always been.

The next day, before returning to my office in Columbus, I decided to visit the nearby famous boot factory in Nelsonville.

What I’m going to relate next may sound a bit melodramatic, but it was for real.

I was on one of the top floors of the factory outlet looking at brand-name dress boots. There was hardly anyone else there, so I was sort of isolated.

All of a sudden, I spotted a half dozen tall, Black men down the aisle from me. One of them then called out, “Mr. Hooonigmannn!”

After my experience the night before, I figured that my time on Earth was up. There were definitely folks at OU who wanted to kill me that night. I nervously stood my ground as they ran up to me.

And if you offered me a million dollars, I would not have traded it for the subsequent experience.

As they grabbed my hands, they said, “Thank you so much for last night. We had never heard or seen what you shared with us before.”

Should I be ashamed to tell you of the tears in my eyes at that moment?

These were not just any folks. These were students, sent by their countries, who would later go on to become some of those nations’ future professionals and leaders.

As I did on dozens of other campuses, through scores of other platforms, and in dozens of op-eds for leading newspapers all over the region, I tried my best to help change some minds – one at a time.

The struggle is as hard, if not harder, today, but those of us who care have no other choice but to continue in this ever-growing uphill battle for a bit of justice for the Jew of the nations.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24912


Canadian Friends ICEJ Spearheaded Successful Campaign To …


INFAMOUS UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 3379 DECLARING…
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/un/anti3379.html



One Against the World

UN resolutions established the State of Israel and through them this country … the notorious resolution equating Zionism with racism, passed in November 1975 …. law became increasingly central to the UN agenda, the Arab lobby has been…

http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/un/one.html



United Nations Anti Israel Arab Lobby

The most repugnant of these anti-Semitic resolutions came in November 1975,..

http://www.scottishfriendsofisrael.org/united_nations.htm


THE UN’S ANTI-ZIONISM RESOLUTION: CHRISTIAN RESPONSES…

by JH Banki

United Nations resolution equating Zionism with racism “be counter- balanced ….. than the Arab lobby usually encounters on UN votes…

http://www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/740.PDF


The Arab Lobby: The Invisible Alliance That Undermines America’s Interests in the Middle East – Page 411 – Mitchell Bard – HarperCollins, 2010 – 412 pages

… Zionism and racism resolution 3379…

http://books.google.com/books?id=QKraRyoXbvoC&pg=PA411

Even anti-Israel ardent critic R. Goldstone admits the “apartheid” slur, is a lie, a slander!

November 6, 2011

Even anti-Israel ardent critic R. Goldstone admits the “apartheid” slur, is a lie, a slander!

Richard J. Goldstone, is a former justice of the South African Constitutional Court, who led the United Nations fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict of 2008-9. He was quick to “accuse” Israel of “war crimes” in its (2008-9) anti-Terror operation (‘Cast Lead’). But retracted it after learning the facts.[1] In 2011 (Oct.) he wrote an Op Ed in the New York Times: “Israel and the Apartheid Slander.”

The need for reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians has never been greater. So it is important to separate legitimate criticism of Israel from assaults that aim to isolate, demonize and delegitimize it.

One particularly pernicious and enduring canard that is surfacing again is that Israel pursues “apartheid” policies. In Cape Town starting on Saturday, a London-based nongovernmental organization called the Russell Tribunal on Palestine will hold a “hearing” on whether Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid. It is not a “tribunal.” The “evidence” is going to be one-sided and the members of the “jury” are critics whose harsh views of Israel are well known.

While “apartheid” can have broader meaning, its use is meant to evoke the situation in pre-1994 South Africa. It is an unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel, calculated to retard rather than advance peace negotiations.

I know all too well the cruelty of South Africa’s abhorrent apartheid system, under which human beings characterized as black had no rights to vote, hold political office, use “white” toilets or beaches, marry whites, live in whites-only areas or even be there without a “pass.” Blacks critically injured in car accidents were left to bleed to death if there was no “black” ambulance to rush them to a “black” hospital. “White” hospitals were prohibited from saving their lives.

In assessing the accusation that Israel pursues apartheid policies, which are by definition primarily about race or ethnicity, it is important first to distinguish between the situations in Israel, where Arabs are citizens, and in West Bank areas that remain under Israeli control in the absence of a peace agreement.

In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute: “Inhumane acts … committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” Israeli Arabs — 20 percent of Israel’s population — vote, have political parties and representatives in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on its Supreme Court. Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment.

To be sure, there is more de facto separation between Jewish and Arab populations than Israelis should accept. Much of it is chosen by the communities themselves. Some results from discrimination. But it is not apartheid, which consciously enshrines separation as an ideal. In Israel, equal rights are the law, the aspiration and the ideal; inequities are often successfully challenged in court.

The situation in the West Bank is more complex. But here too there is no intent to maintain “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group.” This is a critical distinction, even if Israel acts oppressively toward Palestinians there. South Africa’s enforced racial separation was intended to permanently benefit the white minority, to the detriment of other races. By contrast, Israel has agreed in concept to the existence of a Palestinian state in Gaza and almost all of the West Bank, and is calling for the Palestinians to negotiate the parameters.

But until there is a two-state peace, or at least as long as Israel’s citizens remain under threat of attacks from the West Bank and Gaza, Israel will see roadblocks and similar measures as necessary for self-defense, even as Palestinians feel oppressed. As things stand, attacks from one side are met by counterattacks from the other. And the deep disputes, claims and counterclaims are only hardened when the offensive analogy of “apartheid” is invoked.

Those seeking to promote the myth of Israeli apartheid often point to clashes between heavily armed Israeli soldiers and stone-throwing Palestinians in the West Bank, or the building of what they call an “apartheid wall” and disparate treatment on West Bank roads. While such images may appear to invite a superficial comparison, it is disingenuous to use them to distort the reality. The security barrier was built to stop unrelenting terrorist attacks; while it has inflicted great hardship in places, the Israeli Supreme Court has ordered the state in many cases to reroute it to minimize unreasonable hardship. Road restrictions get more intrusive after violent attacks and are ameliorated when the threat is reduced.

Of course, the Palestinian people have national aspirations and human rights that all must respect. But those who conflate the situations in Israel and the West Bank and liken both to the old South Africa do a disservice to all who hope for justice and peace.

Jewish-Arab relations in Israel and the West Bank cannot be simplified to a narrative of Jewish discrimination. There is hostility and suspicion on both sides. Israel, unique among democracies, has been in a state of war with many of its neighbors who refuse to accept its existence. Even some Israeli Arabs, because they are citizens of Israel, have at times come under suspicion from other Arabs as a result of that longstanding enmity.

The mutual recognition and protection of the human dignity of all people is indispensable to bringing an end to hatred and anger. The charge that Israel is an apartheid state is a false and malicious one that precludes, rather than promotes, peace and harmony. [2]

J. B. Pollack explains the context and timely importance of the Op Ed article:

Goldstone’s article anticipates the forthcoming “Russell Tribunal on Palestine,” to be held in South Africa. Named after the hearings held in the 1960s by philosopher Bertrand Russell in the United Kingdom to protest the Vietnam War, the Russell Tribunal will bring the emotive symbolism of apartheid to a make-believe judicial process whose outcome is already predetermined.
The chair of the panel, anti-war activist Terry Crawford-Browne, has already called for international boycotts of Israel. One of the star witnesses is Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, who conducted a reign of terror in South Africa’s black townships in the 1980s. Another is former U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney, who recently busied herself with propaganda for Muammar Gaddafi.

Despite the panel’s obvious lack of credibility, it will no doubt be touted by western leftists and third world governments as the basis for a renewed push at the United Nations to isolate Israel and promote unilateral Palestinian statehood. Goldstone’s op-ed is a timely rejoinder and the beginning of what appears to be sincere penance for the damage done by his slanderous report on the Gaza conflict of 2008-9.[3]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Israeli Democracy vs. Arab Apartheid [AT]

October 31, 2011

Israeli Democracy vs. Arab Apartheid

By JanSuzanne Krasner

October 26, 2011

It is a falsehood to say that Israel is an apartheid state.  This indictment, made by Mahmoud Abbas repeatedly in his speeches, is an Orwellian distortion of the truth, but it has been extremely effective in the public relations war of words that plays out in the United Nations, on the international stage, in the media, and on college campuses every day.

This is a grave and toxic travesty that needs to be made right.  In light of the “Arab Spring” spreading seeds of sharia law throughout the Middle East, Western civilization needs to see the truth.  Americans are being hijacked by propaganda against Israel…and not defending Israel’s right to be a Jewish state will lead to our own eventual downfall.

The analogy of Israel to South African apartheid commands a response.  Because of its catchy, slick word combination and its connotations that evoke vivid images of human unfairness and suffering, it has became a fashionable narrative for the media and international community’s discourse.  But it is not factual, and it is very deceptive.

Labeling Israel “apartheid” is meant to provoke worldwide criticism and elicit human rights-based anger that sanctions demonstrations, boycotts, and the denigration of Jewish morals.  This finger-pointing is an intentional attack on Israel.  It condones terror in the guise of “freedom-fighters,” encourages prosecution of Israeli officials in foreign courts, promotes laws against Israeli goods, and supports boycotts of stores selling Israeli products.  It sees the advantage of kidnapping soldiers, allows the destruction of Jewish artifacts and religious sites, and tries to exclude Jews from their legitimate claim to their historic homeland.

Factually speaking, apartheid was the policy of the South African government as a way of dealing with the white and non-white social, political and economic issues up until 1992.  It was the official policy that established and maintained racial segregation and racial discrimination.  The South African non-whites could not vote, and they had to carry a “Pass Book,” or they risked being jailed or deported.  By contrast, all citizens of Israel have equal voting rights.  Arabs have eleven representatives in Israel’s Knesset, including an Arab on the Israeli Supreme Court.  Every citizen must carry an identity card, along with all legal residents. 

In addition, non-white South Africans were kept from a wide range of jobs.  They had no free elementary through high school education; mixed sexual relationships were restricted and segregated; hospital and ambulance services were segregated; they could not use most public amenities; sports were segregated; and public facilities were labeled for correct racial usage.  Non-whites could not enter a building through the main entrance, be a member of a union, or participate in a strike.  That is apartheid, and Israel is not an apartheid state.

Although many pro-Palestinian organizations are aware that the Israel-apartheid analogy is inaccurate, this rhetoric is continually used to condemn and isolate Israel.  Just visit Israel to see the truth…Israeli Arabs shopping at Jerusalem’s Mamila Mall, enjoying Tel Aviv beaches, enrolled in the universities, getting hospital care, going on school trips to the zoos, and having free access to public places.

One of the more outspoken defenders of Israel is Benjamin Pogrund, a Jew born in Cape Town, now living in Israel.  Pogrund lived under apartheid, and as an anti-apartheid activist, he took grave risks by reporting the injustices against blacks.  He often comments that the comparison of Israel to South African apartheid “greatly minimizes the oppression and misery caused by apartheid and is debasing to its victims.”

In his rebuttal, Pogrund argues that “Israel is not unique in declaring itself a state for a specific people.”

Everyone knows that Egypt is for Egyptians, Ireland is for Irishmen, France for Frenchmen, Italy is for Italians, Serbia for Serbs, China for the Chinese, Iran for the Persians…and the list goes on.

“Apartheid”-supporters substantiate their stance by claiming that Israel discriminates against Israeli Arabs by barring them from buying land.

The facts regarding land ownership are clarified by Mitchell Bard, the executive director of the non-profit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE) and a foreign policy analyst who frequently lectures on U.S.-ME policy:

In the early part of the century, the Jewish National Fund was established by the World Zionist Congress to purchase land in Palestine for Jewish settlement. This land, and that acquired after Israel’s War of Independence, was taken over by the government. Of the total area of Israel, 92% belongs to the State and is managed by the Land Management Authority. It is not for sale to anyone, Jew or Arab. The remaining 8% of the territory is privately owned. The Arab Waqf (the Muslim charitable endowment), for example, owns land that is for the express use and benefit of Muslim Arabs. Government land can be leased by anyone, regardless of race, religion or sex. All Arab citizens of Israel are eligible to lease government land.

The reality is that both Arabs and Jews build homes illegally throughout Israel.  And the fact is that the number of illegal Arab homes scheduled for demolition is miniscule compared to Jewish homes that must adhere scrupulously to the rules for fear of condemnation.  (Please check Bard’s point-by-point rebuttal.)

The problems in Israel’s Arab communities are much like conditions others face in various places in the world, but Arabs don’t point a finger at those places.  Only Israel is labeled and attacked as “apartheid.”  Arabs need only to look at their neighboring countries in the Middle East to find real apartheid.  Does anyone honestly believe that Muslim women do not suffer from apartheid in countries with sharia law?  Or that Christians and Jews in some Arab nations are being attacked and killed purely because of their religion?  More pointedly, both Jordan and Saudi Arabia do not allow Jews to live there, and Saudi Arabia doesn’t even let Jews visit.

There are many “no-class” citizens in the world that Arabs don’t care to talk about.  One must believe that Abbas just doesn’t recognize “apartheid” as he declares that the State of Palestine will be “Judenrein” — a Jewish-free state.  Instead, the label of “apartheid” is stuck on Israel, keeping eyes focused away from the intolerance and bigotry that the PLO and Hamas preach.

Recently, I took issue with “Students for Justice in Palestine” (SJP), an on-campus pro-Palestinian organization that orchestrated the first National Anti-Israel Conference at Columbia University to “educate” students for participation in “Israel Apartheid Week 2012” on university campuses.

The SJP supports the Apartheid Movement, the Gaza Freedom Movement that tried to break the Israeli-Egyptian blockade, the BDS movement against Israeli goods, and a One-State Solution with the “Right of Return.”  There can be no doubt that SJP, hiding behind the veil of human rights activism, supports the end of a Jewish state while “freedom-fighting” terrorists try to accomplish the same goal through violence.

One question needs to be asked of all those who accuse Israel of being an apartheid state: if Israel gave up all the land rights, forfeited all of the natural resources, and agreed to a One-State Solution with the “Right of Return,” would the Jews be able to live in peaceful coexistence with their Arab neighbors?  The answer to this question determines the fate of the Jewish people and whether peace is ever attainable.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/israeli_democracy_vs_arab_apartheid.html

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The real racism: Expecting Jews to die meekly [JPost]

October 28, 2011

The real racism: Expecting Jews to die meekly

By MARTIN SHERMAN

10/27/2011 23:00



Into the Fray: Israel needs to once again convey, unapologetically, to the world the rationale for its founding.
div id=”body_val”>
The most accurate way to describe Israel today is as an apartheid state… 3.5 million Palestinians and almost half a million Jews live in the areas Israel occupied in 1967, and yet while these two groups live in the same area, they are subjected to totally different legal systems. The Palestinians are stateless and lack many of the most basic human rights. – Neve Gordon, “Boycott Israel,” Los Angeles Times, August 20, 2009.

Taken from an article by a senior Israeli academic, this excerpt typifies the racist Judeophobic rhetoric that has come to dominate the public discourse on the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.

Sadly it is rhetoric that has been endorsed by many in the Israeli academia and media. Even more disturbing is the complicity — or at least complacency — of Israeli officialdom in allowing it to become the defining feature of this discourse.

Expecting Jews to die meekly

This mode of rhetoric is no less than inciteful, Judeophobic racism, because in effect, it embodies the implicit delegitmization of the right of Jews to defend themselves.

It embodies the implicit expectation that Jews should consent to die meekly. And how can an expectation that Jews die meekly be characterized other than as “inciteful, Judeophobic racism?” For no matter what the measures Israel adopts to protect its citizens from those undisguisedly trying to murder and maim them — because they are Jews — they are widely condemned as “racist,” “disproportionate violence” or even “war crimes/crimes against humanity.”

It matters not whether these measures are administrative decisions or security operations, defensive responses or anticipatory initiatives, punitive retaliations or preemptive strikes. It matters not whether they entail the emplacement of physical barriers to block the infiltration of indiscriminate murderers; the imposition of restrictions to impede their lethal movements; the execution of preventive arrests to foil their deadly intentions; the conduct of targeted killings (with unprecedentedly low levels of collateral damage) to preempt their brutal plans; the launch of military campaigns to prevent the incessant shelling of civilians…

Lip service to Israel’s right to self-defense

The depiction of these measures as arbitrary acts of wrongdoing, whose only motivation is racially driven territorial avarice and discriminatory embitterment of the lives of the Palestinians, distorts reality and disregards context. But far more perturbing, is the moral implication of this condemnation.

For if all endeavors to prevent, protect or preempt are denounced as morally reprehensible, the inevitable conclusion is that they should not be employed. This implies a no less inevitable conclusion: To avoid the morally reprehensible, the Jewish state should — in effect — allow those who would attack its citizens, to do so with total impunity, and with total immunity from retribution.

True, many of Israel’s detractors protest with righteous indignation that they acknowledge that it “has a right to defend itself.” But this is quickly exposed as meaningless lip service, for whenever Israel exercises that allegedly acknowledged right, it is condemned for being excessively heavy-handed.

It makes little difference if Israel imposes a legal maritime blockade to prevent the supply of lethal armaments to Islamist extremists; or if Israeli commandos are forced to use deadly force to prevent themselves from being disemboweled by a frenzied lynch mob; or if, in response to the savage slaughter wrought by Palestinian suicide bombers — which relative to its population, dwarfed the losses on 9/11 — Israel clears the terror-infested and boobytrapped Jenin, using ground troops rather than its air force to minimize Palestinian collateral damage, thus incurring needless casualties of its own.

No matter how murderous the onslaughts initiated by the Palestinians, no matter how blatant the Palestinian brutality, no matter how outrageous the Palestinian provocation, the Israeli response is deemed inappropriate.

Despite the declaration of recognition of some generic abstract right to defend itself and its citizens, it seems that in practice the only “appropriate” response is for Israel to refrain from defending itself.

Exigencies of security

Then there is the reverse racism emblazoned in the subtext of the discourse of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians: The victims of racist hatred are condemned as racist for fending off their racist attackers.

Security barriers are not erected, roadblocks are not put in place, travel restrictions are not enforced as a racist response to Palestinian ethnicity but as a rationale response to Palestinian enmity. To believe otherwise is to fall prey to what Binyamin Netanyahu once called the “reversal of causality.” The blockade of Gaza is a consequence, not a cause, of Hamas’s violence; the West Bank security barrier is the result of, not the reason for, Palestinian terrorism.

If not for the massive carnage at Sbarro pizzeria, at Dizengoff Center, at the Passover Seder in the Park Hotel, there would have been no IDF operation in Jenin in 2002. Without the indiscriminate bombardment of Israeli civilians, there would have been no Cast Lead operation in Gaza in 2009. If pregnant women and ambulances were not used to smuggle explosives into Israeli cities, there would be no need for checkpoints and roadblocks. If Palestinian gunmen would not open fire from vehicles on Israeli families passing by, there would be no need to restrict the movement of Palestinians on certain roads. If Palestinians did not ambush Israeli cars traveling though Palestinian towns, there would be no need to construct special roads for Israelis to bypass those towns.

The outcome of Judeophobic enmity

Of course, the standard Judeophobic response to this will be… “occupation,” that all-purpose, all-weather, one-size-fits-all excuse for every racist Palestinian atrocity perpetrated against the Jews.

According to this morally base and factually baseless contention, all Palestinian violence is an expression of understandable rage and frustration due to years of repressive “occupation” of Palestinian lands.

This claim is as egregious as it is asinine. It must be rejected with the moral opprobrium and the intellectual disdain it so richly deserves.

Indeed, as I have demonstrated in several recent columns, the call for the destruction of the Jewish state was made long before Israel held a square inch of what is now designated as “occupied Palestinian land.” (In fact, the original 1964 Palestinian National Covenant explicitly disavows any sovereign claim to the “West Bank” and Gaza as the Palestinian homeland.) The founding documents of the PLO, Fatah and Hamas are all committed to the destruction of the Jewish state, irrespective of time and regardless of frontiers. This too was the sentiment reiterated by Mahmoud Abbas in his recent UN appearance.

So clearly “Occupation” is not the origin of Palestinian ill-will towards Israel. Quite the reverse. The Israeli presence in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is a direct outcome of Arab ill-will towards Israel, when in 1967 their massive military offensive to destroy Israel failed catastrophically.

It was not Jewish territorial avarice that brought Israel to “the territories” but Arab Judeocidal aggression.

What if there had been no ‘Occupation’?

Even if it can be irrefutably shown that “occupation” is not the origin
of Palestinian hostility, might it is not be possible that elimination
of “occupation” would induce, if not Palestinian amitié, then at least
Palestinian acceptance of Israel? Sadly, all evidence seems to point the
other way. Every time Israel has made tangible efforts to remove
“occupation,” the frenzy of Palestinian terrorism has soared to a higher
crescendo, and forced abandonment or even reversal of these efforts:

• This was the case from 1993 to ’96, when the implementation of the Oslo agreements brought forth a huge wave of suicide bombings.

• This was the case in 2000, when Ehud Barak offered sweeping concessions to
the Palestinians, who responded with a wave of unprecedented terrorism
which continued under Ariel Sharon’s “restraint-is-strength-policy”
until the carnage made military response unavoidable. The result was
Operation Defensive Shield in 2002 that brought the IDF back in force to
the “West Bank,” where calm has been largely maintained ever since.

This was the case in 2005, when Israel withdrew from Gaza and erased every
vestige of “occupation,” and in return received continuing and
escalating violence that culminated in Operation Cast Lead.

Clearly, not only can “occupation” not be attributed as the cause of Palestinian enmity, but attempts to remove — or at least attenuate — it seem only to exacerbate this enmity.

Here intriguing questions arise: What if Israel had never taken over the “West Bank” or had withdrawn
immediately after doing so, transferring control back to Jordan? What
then would have become of the Palestinians and their claims to “national
liberation?” What “occupation” would have then been blamed for their
plight? What territory would have then been the focus of their efforts
to establish their state? These are weighty questions which must await
discussion at some later stage, but merely raising them poses a serious
challenge to the factually flawed conventional wisdom that dominates and
distorts the debate on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

‘Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism’

“Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism” is the mantra sounded with Pavlovian regularity by Israel’s detractors. And they are of course right. Criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti- Semitism.

However, the enduring practice of holding the nation-state of the Jews to
discriminatory double standards does makes anti-Semitism an increasingly
plausible explanation for that criticism, an explanation can no longer
be summarily dismissed without persuasive proof to the contrary.

After all, atrocities of ferocity and scale far beyond anything of which
Israel is accused, even by its most vehement detractors, are perpetrated
regularly with hardly a murmur of censure from the international
community. By contrast the slightest hint of any Israeli infringement —
real or imagined — of human rights immediately results in expression of
shock and revulsion in headlines in all major media outlets across the
globe, precipitates emergency sessions of international organizations,
and produces worldwide condemnation, from friend and foe alike.

Of
course, the implication is not that Israel should be judged by the same
criteria as the tyrannies of Sudan or North Korea; or by the bloody
standards of Damascus or Tehran.

The question is, however, why
should it be judged by standards and criteria which are far more
stringent than those applied to the democracies that make up NATO.

For in the Balkans, in Iraq and in Afghanistan they have enforced blockades
and embargoes far more onerous and damaging to civilians than that
imposed on Gaza. They conducted military campaigns far from their
borders that caused far more civilian casualties than Israel has in
campaigns conducted only a few kilometers from the heart of its capital
city…

Yet international outcry has been — at best – muted.

So, while holding the Jewish state to standards demanded of no other nation in the exercise of its right to self-defense may have explanations
other than anti-Semitism (or Judeophobia to be more precise), no really
compelling ones come readily to mind.

The real racism

This brings us back to where we began.

While the Jewish state faces unparalleled threats, and unconditional enmity,
it is continually condemned for acting to meet those threats and to
contend with that enmity — no matter what measures it adopts, no matter
how grave the peril, no matter how severe the provocation.

This then is the real racism that permeates the discourse on the Israel-Palestinian conflict:

• The expectation that the Jews jeopardize their security in order to maintain the viability of manifest falsehoods.


The perverse portrayal of every coercive measure undertaken by the IDF
to protect the lives of Jews against those striving to kill them, merely
because they are Jews, as racially motivated, disproportionate
violence.

• The disingenuous depiction of the inconvenience
caused to Palestinians by these measures as a more heinous evil than the
Jewish deaths they are designed to prevent.

• The attitude that
shedding Jewish blood is more acceptable than the measures required to
prevent it, an element that appears to be becoming increasingly
internalized into the discourse on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Israel needs to once again convey, unapologetically, to the world the
rationale for its founding: Jews will no longer die meekly.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=243452